
Class. 
Book 



FACTS 



/^QsS^ 



■Pr 



INVOLVED IN THE 



) 



RHODE ISLAND CONTROVERSY 



SOME VIEWS 



UPON THE 



RIGHTS OF BOTH PARTIES. 



I^^^B^ 




BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY B. B. MUSSEY, No. 29 CORNHILL. 

1842. 




A 



FACTS 

INVOLVED IN THE 



i J"^ 



RHODE ISLAND CONTROVERSY 



SOME VIEWS 



UPON THE 



IGHTS OF BOTH PARTIES. 



BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY B. B. MUSSEY, No. 29 CORNHILL. 

1842. 






Bos. Pub.Lit> 



; Printed by S. N. Dickinson, 1 
[ Si Washington-st. Boston, J 



IIHODE ISLAND CONTROVEESY. 



Rhode Island is the theatre of a great and angry contro- 
versy ; a controversy involving issues of a wider magnitude 
than have before agitated the Confederation since the organ- 
ization of the government. It is a collision not of men but 
of principles, and as such, has drawn the attention and ex- 
cited the interest of the great body of the American people. 
Were it a merely local quarrel, it would be left to the deci- 
sion of the parties m.ore immediately interested ; but those 
who deem it such know but little of the merits of the con- 
test. 

The issue is, whether all power is embodied primarily in 
the people, or in the instruments of their creation ; whether 
man, of himself, has the inherent and inalienable right to 
participate in the government because he is a man, or be- 
cause of collateral circumstances ; whether the governed can 
' alter and amend ' the government, or whether the govern- 
ment may, at its own option, be despotic in its power and 
perpetual in its existence ; in a word, whether the rallying 
shout of our fathers — " The voice of the people is the voice 
of God" — is wild and visionary fanaticism or sober truth. 
The whole superstructure of this great Union is based upon 
the recognition of the supremacy of the people ; take that 
away, and it must crumble to dust, and disappear " like the 



baseless fabric of a vision." Are not, then, the whole peo- 
ple interested, deeply and personally, in the result of this 
controversy, and ought the popular sympathy, we ask, to be 
circumscribed by the metes and bounds of the State of 
Rhode Island ? 

The two immediate parties to the controversy embrace 
almost the entire adult male population of the State. One 
party claims, that the Charter given to the colonies of Rhode 
Island by Charles Second, and the laws and usages that 
have grown from it during the last two centuries, possess 
paramount authority ; and the other, that all power vests 
primarily in the people. The one claims that there can be 
no binding law enacted unless it emanates from the Charter 
government ; the other, that the people are sovereign, and 
therefore competent to amend, alter, or abolish the forms of 
government that they or their ancestors have established. 
Under the Charter is ranged the great body of those who 
administer the government it establishes, and opposed to 
them are all those whom the Charter and the laws under it 
disfranchise. The former is the more wealthy class, and 
the latter the more numerous, but both arc powerful from 
their numbers, their talents, and their character. The latter 
demand, and have demanded for nearly half a century, par- 
ticipation in the government, free suffrage and equal repre- 
sentation. The former have fixed the standard of qualifica- 
tion to citizenship at one hundred and thirty-four dollars in 
real estate, while the representation remains the same as 
provided for in the Charter. 

Within the past two years, the immediate measures have 
been taken which have placed the two parties in their pres- 
ent hostile attitude. 

More than a year since, the Charter party made the pre- 
liminary arrangements for the call of a Convention of dele- 
gates, to be elected /rom and by the qualified freeholders, for 



the framing of a Constitution. Soon after the Suffrage 
party called a Convention of delegates to be elected //'o>« 
and by the whole inale adult people for the same purpose. 
Both bodies met, and each proceeded to frame a Constitu- 
tion ; — the Suffrage Convention on the basis of free suffrage 
and equal representation, and the Charter Convention upon 
that of suffrage and representation founded on property. 
That of the former was submitted to the people before the 
latter body had finished its labors ; and the strong support 
afforded, if not clear adoption of that Constitution, induced 
the Charter Convention to extend the right of suffi-age 
nearly as claimed, still leaving the representation unequal. 
Their Constitution was rejected by a decided popular vote, 
and that of the Suffrage Convention was declared by its 
framers and adherents to have been adopted by a majority 
of the people, and to be the law of the State ; and under it a 
new government was formed. 

There are now, therefore, existing in the State two distinct 
powers. Both have appealed for aid to the General Gov- 
ernment, and should more serious troubles ensue, that aid 
will be rendered to one of the parties. When that event 
takes place, if ever, we cannot doubt on which side the 
popular sympathy will tend. Whatever may be said by 
hackneyed politicians of the degeneracy of the masses, there 
yet burns in the public mind the inextinguishable love of 
liberty. Let but an unholy hand touch the great princi- 
ple, and, as in olden times, the beacon fires will blaze upon 
every hill top, and a million breasts surround it as a bul- 
wark. 

The principal facts on which the controversy is based, we 
will now give as succinctly as possible. 

The first settlements in the State were commenced in 
1636, by Roger Williams and others, and were soon after 
called the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 
1* 



Other settlements, not long after, were made within the 
territory of the State, by several companies under different 
grants. Providence Plantations, Warwick, and the island 
of Rhode Island, each had their separate government. The 
inconvenience of this was early felt, and voluntary associa- 
tions under the government were several times entered into, 
and as often dissolved. 

In 1643, '4, Sir Henry Vane, who was one of the Com- 
missioners of Plantations, with the Earl of Warwick, gi-anted 
the first charter to the State, by authority of Parliament. By 
this charter, the inhabitants of the towns of Providence, 
Portsmouth, and Newport, were incorporated by the name of 
" The IncorporatiOxN of Providex\ce Plantations, in the 
Narragansett Bay, in New England," with power to 
rule themselves and such others as should thereafter inhabit 
within any part of the tract of land mentioned therein, by 
such a form of civil government as by voluntary consent of 
all, or the greater part of them, they should find most suitable 
to their estate and condition. These powers had brought 
one restriction, which was, that " said laws, constitutions, 
and punishments, should be conformable to the laws of Eng- 
land, so far as the nature and constitution of the place would 
admit." 

The union under this charter was in a few years broken ; 
but in August, 1654, a meeting of commissioners from all 
the towns was holden at Warwick, when articles of reiinion 
were agreed upon, and the government under the charter, as 
at first, reorganized. 

The restoration of Charles IL, in 1660, caused the inhab- 
itants of this colony to fear, that the rights which they had 
obtained from Parliament, when at war with the father, would 
not be respected by the son. They had reason also to ex- 
pect, that the same exertions which had been made by their 
neighbors to produce the recall of their charter, would now 



be repeated, and with more success. They, therefore, 
adopted measures to procure the favor of their new king, 
and a confirmation of their privileges. A new commission 
was issued to Mr. John Clark, who was then in England, 
appointing him their agent for the preservation of their char- 
tered rights and liberties. Three from each town were 
appointed to draw up an humble petition to His Majesty, to 
correspond with their agent, and to do what seemed to them 
best to accomplish their wishes in this respect. The new 
king was disposed to forget past animosities, and unite in 
himself the affection of all parties. A new charter was 
granted on the 8th of July, 1663, and was received in 
November, 1663, by the court of commissioners at Newport. 
This charter was almost in word and letter as solicited by 
their agents. 

Its provisions, so far as they in the least bear on the ques- 
tion now at issue, we shall here copy at length, and omit 
only those which have no relevancy to the controversy. 

CHARTER. 

The charter, after the manner of those days, is very ver- 
bose. After naming the considerations which moved His 
Majesty to grant it, one of which was that the colonists had 
brought under subjection to the government the Indians, who, 
as the Charter reads, " we are informed are the most potent 
princes and people of all that country," it provides, 

First " That our Royal will and pleasure is, that no 
person within the said Colony, at any time hereafter, shall 
be anywise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in 
question, for any differences in opinion in matters of 
religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our 
said Colony ; but that all and every person and persons 
may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely 



8 

and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and 
consciences in matters of religious concernments, throughout 
the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving them- 
selves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to 
licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or s 
outward disturbance of others ; any law, statute or clause, 
therein contained, or to be contained, usage or custom of 
this realm to the contrary hereof, in anywise notwith- 
standing." 

Second. That the petitioners "and all such others as 
now are, or hereafter shall be, admitted and made free of 
the Company and Society of our Colony of Providence 
Plantations^ in the Narragansett Bay, in New England, 
shall be from time to time, and forever hereafter, a body 
corporate and politic^ in fact and name, by the name of The 
Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode 
Island and Providence Plantations, in New England in 
America." 

It provides " That for the better ordering and managing 
of the affairs and business of the said Company and their 
successors, there shall be one Governor, one Deputy-Gov- 
ernor, and ten assistants, to be, from time to time " chosen 
out of the Freemen of the Company, and that until such 
choice could be made, these officers were to be appointed by 
the Crown. 

" And that forever hereafter, twice in every year, (that is 
to say,) on every first Wednesday in the month of May, and 
on every last Wednesday in October, or oftener, in case it 
shall be requisite, the assistants, and such of the freemen of 
the said Company, not exceeding six persons for Neivport, 
four persons for each of the respective towns of Providence, 
Portsmouth and Warwick, and tivo persons for each other 
place, town, or dtp, who shall be from time to time, there- 
unto elected or deputed by the major part of the freemen of 



the respective towns or places for which they shall be so 
elected or deputed, shall have a general meeting or assembly, 
then and there to consult, advise and determine, in and 
about the affairs and business of the said Company and 
Plantations." 

" And also to regulate and order the way and manner of 
all elections to offices and places of trust, and to prescribe, 
limit and distinguish the numbers and bounds of all places, 
towns or cities within the limits and bounds herein after 
mentioned, and not herein particularly named, who have or 
shall have, the power of electing and sending of freemen to 
the said General Assembly." 

And " That yearly, once in the year forever hereafter, 
namely, the aforesaid Wednesday in May, and at the town 
of Newport^ or elsewhere, if urgent occasion do require, the 
Governor, Deputy-Governor, and Assistants of the said 
Company, and other officers of the said Company, or such 
of them as the General Assembly shall think fit, shall be, in 
the said General Court or Assembly to be held from that 
day or time newly chosen for the year ensuing, by such 
greater part of the said company, for the time being, as shall 
be then and there present." 

" And further. Our will and pleasure is, that in all matters 
of public controversy, which may fall out between our 
Colony of Providence Plantations and the rest of our 
Colonies in New England, it shall, and may be lawful to 
and for the Governor and Company of the said Colony of 
Providence Plantations, to make their appeals therein to us, 
OUR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS, foT Tcdress lYi suck cttses withiii 
this, our realm of Eng-landJ'^ 

It will be seen from the foregoing general view of the 
Charter, that it provides for a government consisting of a 
Governor, Deputy Governor, and ten Assistants, to be chosen 
yearly by the freemen ; also certain Representatives, not 



10 

exceeding six for Newport, four each for Providence, War- 
wick and Portsmouth, and two for each other town or city, 
to be chosen by the majority of freemen in the several 
towns ; that the Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistants, and 
Representatives, were constituted by the terms of the Char- 
ter, one body, denominated the General Assembly, and that 
there was granted entire religious freedom and unlimited 
right of suffrage ; that to the General Assembly was dele- 
gated the power to admit as freemen, and consequently to 
the right of suffrage, as many persons as and whom they 
saw fit, without requiring any qualification whatever, and 
to order the manner and way of electing all public offi- 
cers ; and that all questions between this and the other 
colonies were to be submitted to King Charles or his suc- 
cessors. 

Under this Charter the government has nominally con- 
tinued and acted. And it is among the remarkable facts in 
the great history of revolutions, that though this gallant little 
State fought with unsurpassed courage the mercenaries of 
England, and saw the other colonies scout their worthless 
charter parchments, Rhode Island adhered, with the utmost 
tenacity, to its royal Constitution, and preserved it with the 
care and veneration shown to the crown jewels of the Czar. 

THE CHARTER ASSEMBLY. 

We proceed to give a synopsis of those acts of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, which constitute a material part of the data 
upon w^hich the controversy is based. 

By an act of the General Assembly in May, 1664, voting 
by proxy was authorized, and a plurality of votes rendered 
sufficient for an election. 

In 1666, an act was passed delegating to the towns the 
power to admit freemen. 



11 

In 1724, an act passed the General Assembly, requiring 
electors to have a freehold estate of £100, or 40 shillings 
rent, and at the same time the eldest son of a freeman was 
declared to be a freeman of right, without qualification. Up 
to this time no property qualification had been required io 
constitute a freeman. Rhode Island was principally en- 
gaged in agriculture, and it is therefore reasonable to sup- 
pose that very few were by this law excluded from the polls. 

In 1730, this property qualification was raised from £100 
to d£200, or that the freehold should bear a yearly rent of £10. 

In 1742, it was further enacted by the General Assembly, 
that no person should be admitted to vote but those only who 
at the time of voting were freemen and possessed of land as 
provided in the act of 1730. Did this exclude the eldest 
son ? 

In 1746, the requisite qualification was raised to £400 or 
an annual rent of £20. 

In 1762, it was reduced to the possession of a freehold of 
the value of £40, or one hundred and thirty-four dollars, or 
a yearly rent of forty shillings, or seven dollars ; and that act 
has been continued to the present day. 

While no one could become an elector without first hav- 
ing a freehold of the value of $134, and proving previous 
residence of six months in the town where he wished to 
vote, yet this did not give him a right to claim the privilege 
of a freeman. He must be chosen a freeman in open 
town meeting, or he had no right as an elector. The prop- 
erty only placed him in such condition that the freemen of 
the town might grant him the boon of a free citizen, but 
they were not bound to do it. 

In 1796, the Assistants were created a distinct legislative 
branch, and have so continued to the present day. 

In the lapse of time the political representation became 
very unequal. The representation of the several towns was 



12 

fixed by the Charter, and no provision made for a new 
apportionment. 

POPULAR MOVEMENTS, &c. 

The Charter, at the time of its adoption, was a good one, 
and far in advance of the age. It provided for entire reli- 
gious liberty, fixed no limit to the right of suffrage, and 
vested the whole governing power in a Governor and Gen- 
eral Assembly, chosen annually by the people. The charter, 
when granted, as adapted to the then population, who were 
with but few exceptions landholders, might almost have been 
said to be faultless. 

But, when we look at the charter as adapted to the people 
of Rhode Island in 1840, its character is entirely changed. 
Instead of being in advance of the age, it is behind it. In- 
stead of being one of the best governments in the colonies, 
it has become the worst. Instead of being a government of 
the people, as understood in her sister States, as it really was 
when granted, it has become a government of a mere fraction 
of the people. 

In 1840, when there was a free white male population in 
the State of over twenty-five thousand six hundred, but little 
more than eight thousand six hundred, or less than one third 
of them, were voters ; so that less than one third of the free 
white adult population of the State, governed the other two 
thirds. 

But while the Charter, by a change of the habits and oc- 
cupation of the people, has been thus working injustice to 
the non-freeholders, it has also gradually been equally work- 
ing injustice among the freeholders. 

The Charter, at the time it was granted, in apportioning 
the representatives, assigned six to Newport, four each to 
Providence, Warwick, and Portsmouth, and two to each 



13 

other town. The charter made no provision for any new 
apportionment of representatives, and thus it has continued 
ever since. In the mean time Providence has risen to a city, 
and other towns, which then had scarcely an existence, and 
were entitled to but two representatives, have outstripped New- 
port, and the other then chief towns. The apportionment, 
when made, was a fair one ; noiv nothing could be more une- 
qual. 

The census of 1840 gave a population for the whole Stale 
of 108,837 souls. There were cast for electors in November 
of the same year, 8,622 votes, and at the same time the State 
was entitled to seventy-two representatives. Of these repre- 
sentatives, thirty-eiglit, or more than a majority, were chosen 
from towns possessing a population of only 29,036 inhabi- 
tants, and which cast the same year only 2,846 electoral votes. 
The remaining thirty-four members were chosen from towns 
possessing a population of 79,801 inhabitants, and which 
cast 5,776 electoral votes. 

One freeholder in Barrington, under the Charter, had as 
much weight in the government as twenty-one freeholders in 
Providence, nine in Cumberland, or eighteen in Smithfield. 
So one freeholder in Newport was equal to four in the former 
or three in the latter place. 

It will be seen from the above, that while about 8,600, or 
not far from one third only of the adult male population, 
had the right of suffrage, and nominally governed the State, 
that 2,846, or less than one eighth of that number, chose the 
majority of the popular branch of the Assembly, and really 
held the balance of power. 

This state of unequal suffrage and representation early en- 
listed attention. 

Near the close of the last century a movement was made 
to form a new Constitution, but it was ineffectual. 

In 1811 a bill to extend suffrage to all citizens who paid 
2 



14 

taxes and performed military duty was passed in the Sen- 
ate, but was lost in the House of Representatives. 

In 1819, and the three following years, the subject of a 
State Constitution was agitated, but without success. 

In 1824, a convention of the freemen was called by the 
General Assembly to form a Constitution. This convention 
proposed to the freemen a Constitution redressing in part 
the inequalities of the representation ; but a resolution to 
extend the right of suffrage to others beside landholders, re- 
ceived but three votes in the convention. This Constitution, 
which did not provide for an extension of the right of suf- 
frage, was rejected by a large majority. 

In 1829, further efforts were made for an extension of the 
right of suffrage. Numerous petitions were addressed to the 
General Assembly, praying for that object. These petitions 
were referred to a committee, and reported upon. This re- 
port is unparalleled in modern legislation. It is a most in- 
sulting reply to a respectful petition, strongly intimating that 
the owners of landed estates are the only sound part of the 
community, and that the petitioners not only have leave to 
withdraw their petition from the House, but themselves from 
the State, if they choose. 

In 1832, another attempt to extend the right of suffrage 
failed. 

It now becomes necessary to give an account of more 
strenuous efforts to equalize the representation and extend 
the right of suffrage, and which have caused the recent out- 
break, which has so much agitated the community. 

In 1834, many individuals in the State associated them- 
selves together for the express purpose of obtaining by 
political action an extension of the right of suffrage. By 
invitations from the towns of Cumberland and Smithfield, 
delegates from a number of large towns assembled at Provi- 
dence to consult upon the best course to be pursued for the 



15 

establishment of a written State Constitution, that should 
properly define and fix the powers of the different depart- 
ments of government, and the rights of the citizens. This 
convention assembled at Providence on the 22nd day of 
February, and again on the 12th day of March, 1834. At 
the first meeting of the Convention a committee were 
appointed to prepare an address to the people of the State, 
and at the second meeting the address was read and 
adopted. This movement may perhaps be properly named 
as the date of the formation of the Free Suffrage party. 

The General Assembly, soon after, called a convention of 
freemen for the purpose of framing a new Constitution. 
This convention dissolved without proposing any thing 
material. A proposition in the convention to extend the 
right of suffrage was supported by only seven votes. 

From this time until 1840 no movements of much impor- 
tance connected with this subject were made. In that year 
a Suffrage Association was formed, with auxiliaries in the 
several towns in the State, and was composed mostly of 
mechanics without distinction of party. 

Up to the year 1841, every effort to extend the right of 
suffrage had been unavailing. 

At the January session of the General Assembly in 1841, 
the Association presented a petition for the redress of their 
grievances. The petition was not acted upon. At the 
same session a petition from the town of Smithfield for an 
equalization of representation was presented, and resulted in 
the call of a convention of the freeholders to form a consti- 
tution. 

As this convention was called on account of a petition for 
an equalization of the representation of the State, and not 
on a petition for an extension of suffrage, nothing was 
expected by the association favorable to their prayer. 

The Suffrage Association proceeded to call a Mass Con- 



16 

vention. It was held at Providence on the 17th of April, 
1841. Another was called, and held at Newport on the 5th 
day of May following. At that meeting a State Com- 
mittee was chosen, and directed to call a convention of 
delegates, to draft a Constitution at as early a day as possi- 
ble. An adjourned meeting of this convention was held on 
the 5th of July at Providence, when the instructions before 
given to the State Committee were reiterated, and the com- 
mittee were directed to call a convention of the people on 
the basis of the resolutions passed at Newport. 

The Committee, pursuing the instructions given them by 
llie Mass Conventions held at Newport and Providence, 
held a meeting at Providence on the 20th of July, and in 
conformity with a resolution adopted at Newport, which 
prescribes tlie call of a Convention of the people at large, to 
be represented in proportion to population, passed unani- 
mously the following resolutions : 

Voted, That we proceed to issue a call for the election of 
Delegates to take place on the last Saturday in August, (the 
28th day,) to attend a convention to be holden at the State 
House in Providence on the first Monday in October, (the 
4th day,) for framing a Constitution to be laid before the 
people for their adoption. 

Voted, That every American male citizen, twenty-one 
years of age and upwards, who has resided in this State 
one year preceding the election of delegates, shall vote for 
Delegates to the Convention called by the State Committee, 
to be held at the State House in Providence, on the first 
Monday in October next. 

Voted, That every meeting holden for the election of Del- 
egates to the State Convention shall be organized by the 
election of a Chairman and Secretary, whose certificate 
shall be the authority requu'ed of the Delegates. 

Voted, That each town of one thousand inhabitants, or 



17 

less, shall be entitled to one Delegate, and, for every addi- 
tional thousand, one Delegate shall be appointed, and the 
City of Providence shall elect three Delegates from each 
ward in the city. 

Voted, That the Chairman and Secretary be directed to 
cause one thousand hand-bills to be printed and distributed 
through the State, containing the call for a Convention of 
Delegates. 

Voted, That the proceedings of this meeting be signed by 
the Chairman and Secretary, and published. 

On motion. Voted, That this meeting stand adjourned to 
meet at this place on the first day of September, at 11 
o'clock, A. M. 

At the January session of the General Assembly, in 1841, 
a resolution had been passed, authorizing the freemen to elect 
Delegates to a State Convention to be held on the first 
Monday in November, to frame a Constitution for the State. 
In the choice of Delegates to this Convention none but 
those already freemen had a voice. 

At the June session of the General Assembly, in 1841, a 
motion was submitted, providing for a new apportionment 
of representation and an extension of the right of suffrage 
to all white male citizens, twenty-one or more years of age, 
who paid a tax on real or personal property, in choosing 
Delegates to frame a Constitution. This proposition re- 
ceived but ten votes. 

The General Assembly called a Convention of Delegates 
to frame a Constitution, to be held on the first Monday in 
November, which was one month later than the Convention 
called for the same purpose by the committee appointed by 
the mass meeting. 

The Delegates to the People's, or Suffrage Convention, to 
be held on the first Monday in October, were duly chosen 
by the several towns. The meetings for the choicfe were 
2# 



18 

organized in the same manner as town meetings usually 
have been in Rhode Island, by the election of a Moderator 
and other officers. The Convention met at Providence at 
the time and place appointed, was duly organized, and 
drafted a Constitution. The Convention then adjourned to 
the third Tuesday in November, and in the mean time the 
draft of the Constitution was printed and circulated among 
the people. 

On the first Monday in November the Convention of 
Delegates chosen by the freeholders, raet and proceeded to 
draft a Constitution. On the question of the extension of 
the right of suffi-age, the Convention Voted^ to exclude the 
eldest son of freemen, and to admit such white male adult 
citizens as possessed taxable property to the amount of five 
hundred dollars. The Convention then adjourned to meet 
again on the fifteenth day of the following February. 

The Suffrage Convention met on the 16th day of Novem- 
ber according to adjournment, and on the ISth of the same 
month ADOPTED a Constitution to be submitted to the people 
for their approval on the 27th day of December and the five 
following days. 

T^HE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTION. 

The Constitution, thus framed by this Convention, and 
afterwards submitted to the people, after setting forth the 
usual bill of rights, provides for a distribution of the powers 
of government into three departments — the Legislative, the 
Executive, and Judicial. 

The Executive consists of a Governor and Lieutenant 
Governor, to be chosen annually. The Governor is to have 
the appointing of such civil officers as the choice of is not 
otherwise proved for; he is to be Commander-in-Chief of 
the militia ; to have the pardoning power, and the power 



19 

under certain restrictions of convening and proroguing the 
Greneral Assembly ; and also to have a negative upon the 
acts of the Legislature. 

The Legislative power is vested in two distinct Houses, 
the one called the Senate and the other the House of Rep- 
resentatives, and both called the General Assembly. 

The concurrent vote of the two Houses, and the assent of 
the Governor, is required to pass a law : but the subsequent 
passage of any bill by a majority of both Houses, that has 
been vetoed, is to give it the authority of law\ 

There are to be, in each year, two sessions of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, alternately, at Newport and Providence. 

The Representatives are to be chosen according to a cer- 
tain apportionment, allowing to Newport 5, Warwick 4, 
Smithfield 5, Cumberland, North Providence and Scituate 3^ 
Portsmouth, Westerly, New Shoreham, North Kingstown, 
South Kingstown, East Greenwich, Gloucester, West Green- 
wich, Coventry, Exeter, Bristol, Tiverton, Little Compton, 
Warren, Richmond, Cranston, Charlestown, Hopkinton, John- 
ston, Foster, Burrillville, Jamestown, Middletown and Bar- 
rington, one each, and all the other towns in the State, two 
each. 

The State is to be divided into twelve senatorial districts, 
and each is entitled to one senator. 

The first, second, and third Representative districts in 
Providence to constitute the first senatorial district ; the 
fourth, fifth and sixth, the second district ; the town of Smith- 
field the third ; the towns of Cumberland and North Provi- 
dence, the fourth ; Scituate, Gloucester, Burrillville, the fifth ; 
Warwick and Cranston, the sLxth ; East and West Green- 
wich, Coventry, and Foster, the seventh ; Newport, James- 
town and New Shoreham, the eighth ; Portsmouth, Middle- 
town, Tiverton, and Little Compton, the ninth ; North King- 
stown and South Kingstown, the tenth ; Westerly, Charles- 



20 

town, Exeter, Richmond and Hopkinton, the eleventh ; and 
Bristol, Warren and Barrington, the twelfth. 

The Lieutenant Governor is President of the Senate. 

The power of impeachment is granted to the House, and 
to the Senate to try the same. 

The right of suffrage is extended to all white male citi- 
zens of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who have 
resided in the State one year, and in the town six months 
previous to the election, except paupers, lunatics, &c., with 
the restriction that none but freeholders or other qualified 
voters, who are taxed for property to the amount of $150, 
shall vote in town-meeting upon the assessment of taxes or 
upon the expenditure of the same. 

A strict registration of votes, throughout the State, is pro- 
vided for. 

The Judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and 
such other inferior courts as the Legislature may establish. 

The Judges of the Supreme Court are to be chosen by 
the two Houses in joint committee, and shall hold their 
offices until removed by the vote of the two Houses in 
concurrence. 

The Justices of the inferior courts are to be elected in 
joint committee of the two Houses annually. 

Justices of the Peace are to be elected annually by the 
electors of the several towns, and the Sheriff by those of the 
several counties. 

The Constitution, of which the foregoing summary con- 
tains the leading and important provisions, was submitted to 
the people for their approval at the time appointed, as before 
stated. The polls were opened on those days in every 
town in the State. All challenges of votes were received 
and entertained. The moderators were not under oath. 
The name of each voter was strictly required to be endorsed 



21 

on his vote, as provided in the Constitution. Those who 
voted by proxy had their signatures witnessed by one who 
had previously voted. In addition to this, the name of every 
man who voted was registered, and a copy of the register 
was duly certified with the votes. All the votes in their 
respective envelopes were reserved for future reference. 

These votes were dulv returned to the people's conven- 
tion, and were examined and counted by a large committee 
of that body. 

The committee reported, "that as nearly as could be 
ascertained, the number of males in the State over the age 
of twenty-one years, who could be voters under the people's 
constitution, was 23,142 ; that 11,572 were a majority of that 
number, and that the people's constitution was approved by 
1-3,944, being a plurality of 4,756, and a majority of 2,372 
votes." The constitution, therefore, was by the Convention 
declared to be adopted. 

The report of the Counting Committee was transmitted 
to the General Assem]>ly at the January session, 1842, and 
a motion was made in that body for a committee to examine 
the return, which was negatived by a large majority. 

The history of this controversy is now brought down to 
the adoption by the people of the Suffrage party's constitu- 
tion on the first day of January, 1842. 

The question of the right of the people to frame and 
adopt a constitution in such manner, and also the very 
important fact whether it was really adopted by a majority 
of those persons in whom this constitution invested the 
right of suffrage, will be considered hereafter. It is pur- 
posed here to give only a plain record of the facts, or w^hat 
appear to be the facts, in the order of time in which they 
occurred. The various arguments used by the two parties 
are left for the conclusion. 

Immediately after the people had adopted the Suffrage 



Constitution, the General Assembly convened and held its 
January session, at which a bill was introduced to extend 
the right of suffrage, but was not carried. 

The convention of Landholders assembled again on the 
14th of February, and adopted a constitution, the pertinent 
parts of which will be found to be embraced in the following 
synopsis. 

THE LANDHOLDERS' CONSTITUTION 

Provided for a distribution of the powers of government 
into three branches, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the 
Executive. 

The former Statute regulating the right of suffrage, and 
granting the electoral franchise to freeholders possessing a 
landed estate valued at $134, was embodied in this consti- 
tution. The franchise was further enlarged by providing 
that all white native American citizens (twenty-one years of 
age) who had resided in the State two years, and in the 
town six months, (excepting paupers, &c.,) should be entitled 
to vote in the choice of State and National officers. 

None but freeholders, and other qualified voters who paid 
a tax on property of the value of $150, could vote in the 
assessment of taxes, or the expenditure of the same. 

It provided, that naturalized citizens, to obtain the right of 
suffrage, should possess the freehold qualification, and also 
have resided in the State three years after naturalization, and 
in the town or city where they claimed to vote, the previous 
six months. 

It also provided for the registration of voters, for the ex- 
emption of electors from arrest on election days, and granted 
to the General Assembly the power to admit to the right of 
suffrage other native citizens of the United States, not before 
provided for. This latter provision is supposed to refer to 



23 

the extension of the right of suffrage to the colored popula- 
tion, should public sentiment demand it. 

The legislative powers of the Government were to be 
vested in a Senate and House of Representatives. Each to 
have a negative upon the other. Both were to be called the 
General Assembly, and to have two sessions, one in May, 
the other in October. The House of Representatives was to 
consist of members chosen by the several towns, as follows : 
each town having 4,000, and less than 6,500 inhabitants, 
three representatives ; each town having 6,500, and less than 
10,000 inhabitants, four representatives ; and every 4,000 
above the latter number to be entitled to one representative ; 
no town, however, to have more than eight. 

The Senate was to consist of nineteen members, to be 
chosen annually, by districts. The State was to be divided 
into sixteen Senatorial districts, and apportioned in the fol- 
lowing manner : Newport, two ; Portsmouth, Middletown, 
Tiverton, Little Compton, New Shoreham, and Jamestown, 
two ; Providence, two ; Smithfield, one ; Cumberland and 
North Providence, one ; Scituate, Cranston, and Johnston, 
one ; South Kingstown, one ; Westerly and Charlestown, 
one ; Hopkinton and Richmond, one ; North Kingstown and 
Exeter, one ; Bristol, one ; Warren and Barrington, one ; 
East and West Greenwich, one ; Coventry, one ; Warwick, 
one. 

The chief Executive power was to be vested in a Gov- 
ernor, chosen annually by the people. He was to be com- 
mander in chief of the military forces ; to have the power to 
grant reprieves to the end of the next session of the General 
Assembly ; was to preside in the Senate, and was entided to 
vote there in case of equal division, and not otherwise 
He could fill vacancies in office which might happen during 
the recess of the General Assembly, and convene and ad- 
journ the two Houses in certain cases. He could have no 
negative upon the acts of the other branches. 



24 

It provided for the election, by the people, of a Secretary 
of State, Attorney-General, and General Treasurer, and also 
Justices of the Peace. The other officers were to be chosen 
in grand committee of the two Houses, as provided by the 
Charter of 1663. 

The Judicial power was to be vested in a Supreme Court, 
and such inferior courts, as the Assembly might establish. 
The Justices of the Supreme Court were to hold their offices 
until declared vacant by a resolution of the two Houses. The 
tenor of office, and the manner of appointment of the justices 
of the inferior courts, do not seem to be provided for. 

The General Assembly were to be empowered to propose 
amendments to the Constitution, which amendments were 
to be read at the several town meetings. If the next Gen- 
eral Assembly concurred in proposing the same amend- 
ments, they were then to be submitted to the people, and if 
approved by them, to be a part of the Constitution. 

This Constitution was subniiitted to the people on the 
21st, 22d and 23d days of March, and rejected. The votes 
being 8,013 for, and 8,689 against it. 

The General Assembly met again in March, after the re- 
jection of the Constitution submitted by them to the people. 
At this session a bill was brought forward to extend the right 
of suffi-age for general and state officers, as provided in the 
PeopWs Constitution, and another to submit the question to 
those wdio were qualified to vote under the People's 
Constitution. Both were promptly rejected. At this ses- 
sion the General Assembly declared all elections, except 
such as are authorized by the Charter Government, illegal 
and void, and every officer of such meeting guilty of a mis- 
demeanor, and liable to punishment by fine not exceeding 
^1,000, nor less than ^500, and imprisonment for six 
months. 



25 

That every person who knowingly suffered his name to 
be used as a candidate for any office under the People's 
Constitution, should pay a fine of $1,000, or be imprisoned 
for one year. 

That every person who should attempt to exercise any 
authority under the People's Constitution, would be guilty 
of high treason, and should be punished by imprisonment 
for life. 

At the April term of the General Assembly, a proposition 
was submitted for another Convention of delegates to be 
chosen by a constituency not much extended beyond the 
present freemen. This also was voted down. 

On the 18th day of April, the time appointed by the 
Constitution, the people cast their ballots, in the manner 
prescribed, and elected Thomas W. Dorr, of Providence, 
Governor ; Amasa Eddy, of Gloucester, Lieutenant-Gover- 
nor ; William H. Smith, of Providence, Secretary of State ; 
Jonah Titus, of Scituate, Attorney General ; Joseph Jos- 
lin, of Newport, Treasurer ; and the members of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. The popular vote was very small, (being 
6,417,) many having stayed from the polls on account of the 
Act of the Charter Assembly, commonly called the " Alge- 
rine Act," which threatened imprisonment and a heavy fine 
for any attempt to carry out the provisions of the new 
Constitution. On the same account it w^as with some diffi- 
culty that candidates could be obtained who would consent 
to stand. 

On the first Tuesday of May, the new government met 
at Providence, and were escorted by a procession of about 
four thousand people to a building in Eddy-street, where 
they duly organized. A guard had been placed at the 
State House by the Charter Authorities, and it was deemed 
expedient to allow them to retain possession without moles- 
tation. 

3 



26 

The Assembly organized by the election of Welcome B. 
Sayles, Esq., as Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
who took the usual oath and administered it to the other 
members. John S. Harris and Levi Salisbury were elected 
Clerks of the House. 

The votes for Governor were counted, and Thomas W. 
Dorr was pronounced elected ; and he then took the oath of 
office, and delivered his inaugural address in person. He 
went into a full discussion of the question at issue between 
the parties, and reasoned with great calmness, clearness and 
force. 

The General Assembly, during its session, passed resolves 
that "his Excellency, the Governor, be authorized to take 
such measures as he shall deem necessary to protect and 
preserve the public property of the State ; " that " he be 
authorized to recall any arms or cannon that have been 
loaned by the General Assembly to any of the Independent 
Chartered Companies of the State ; " " that Perez Simmons 
and Nathaniel Mowry be a committee to demand and 
receive the records, books and papers appertaining to the 
office of Secretary of State, from Henry Bowen, late Sec- 
retary of State, and transfer the same to his successor, Wil- 
liam H. Smith ; " and that " the Governor be authorized to 
appoint suitable persons. Commissioners on behalf of this 
State, to proceed to Washington to make known to the 
President of the United States that the people of this State 
have adopted a written Constitution and elected officers and 
peaceably organized the government under that Constitu- 
tion, and that said Government is now in full operation." 
The Assembly also repealed the Algerine law. 

At the session of the Charter Assembly held early in May, 
a resolution was introduced to extend the right of suffiage, 
which was not acted upon. 

The State was now in some sense like the old feudal 



27 

countries. It had imperium in imperio — a government 
within a government. Two distinct sets of officers claimed 
the supreme authority, and, so far as they were able, at- 
tempted to exercise it. The one had the majority in the 
State, and the popular sympathy out of it ; the other had 
the arms and ammunition, the records, the public seals, the 
purse, and what was above all, the countenance, as will 
appear, of the General Government. 

In reply to a communication from Gov. King, written in 
the early part of the year. President Tyler says : " It will be 
my duty to respect the requisitions of that Government 
which has been recognized as the existing government of 
the State in all time past, until I shall be advised in a regu- 
lar manner that it has been altered and abolished." 

In consequence of this letter, and by authority of the 
People's Assembly, Gov. Dorr appointed two Commission- 
ers and accompanied them to Washington, where they laid 
before the President a statement of facts. 

Gov. King also sent a communication to the President, 
stating that there existed in Rhode Island " certain lawless 
assemblages of a portion of the people for the purpose of 
subverting the laws and overthrowing the existing govern- 
ment," and demanding of the national Executive " forthwith 
to interpose the power and authority of the United States to 
suppress such insurrectionary and lawless assemblages, and 
to support the existing government and laws, and protect 
the State from domestic violence." To this Mr. Tyler 
replied, under date of May 7th, that from information he 
had received, he was led to believe that " the lawless 
assemblages to which reference is made have already dis- 
persed, and that the danger of domestic violence is hourly 
diminishing, if it has not wholly disappeared ; but," he pro- 
ceeds to say, " I have to assure your Excellency, that if 
resistance is made to the execution of the laws of Rhode 



28 

Island, by such force as the civil posse shall be unable to 
overcome, it will be the duty of this Government to enforce 
the constitutional guaranty." " And if an exigency of law- 
less violence shall actually arise, the Executive Government 
of the United States will stand ready to succor the authori- 
ties of the State in their efforts to maintain a due respect for 
the laws." 

The answer to Gov. Dorr may be readily inferred. The 
people had nothing to hope from that quarter. 

In the month of March, Chief Justice Durfee delivered a 
charge to the Grand Jury, upon the subject of the move- 
ments of the Free Suffrage party, committing himself fully 
to the Charter party, although those arrested under that 
charge would be tried, and the constitutional question raised 
before him. This, in connection with the proclamations and 
energy of Gov. King, caused the arrest, during the absence 
of Gov. Dorr, of a large number of those who had partici- 
pated in the new government. Among them were Benja- 
min Arnold, Jr., member of the General Assembly, Wel- 
come B. Sayles, Speaker of the House, Joseph Joslin, and 
Hezekiah Willard. 

That these arrests were not merely nominal will appear 
from the fact, that Mr. Arnold, one of the most respectable 
citizens of Providence, was confined in a cell used for con- 
demned felons, being about six feet by eight, and cold, damp 
and dark, and having the usual iron doors and bars, stone 
walls and vermin ; the latter of which always having pos- 
session of such places by an indefeasible right of inheri- 
tance. 

On the 15th day of May, Gov. Dorr arrived at Provi- 
dence, and was received by a very large assemblage of the 
people and the military, and was escorted to the residence of 
Burrington Anthony, Esq. He had previously issued a 
Proclamation stating that so soon as a soldier of the United 



29 

States shall be set in motion by whatever direction, to act 
against the people of the State in aid of the Charter gov- 
ernment, he should call for that aid, to oppose all such force, 
as he was fully " authorized to say would be immediately and 
most cheerfully tendered ; " and that " no further arrests 
under the law of pains and penalties would be permitted." 

The Governor, upon the dismissal of his escort, ordered 
the military to hold themselves in readiness for instant ser- 
vice, and directed his officers to attend him at Mr. An- 
thony's, his head-quarters. Cannon were planted so as to 
protect the house from any invading force. 

On Tuesday evening a force of from eight hundred to 
one thousand, under command of Gov. Dorr, proceeded to 
the arsenal to demand possession, which was refused. The 
Governor then ordered his artillery to fire, but it was found 
upon application of the match that the powder, by the 
thoughtfulness or treachery of some of his friends, had been 
wet. The troops therefore returned to head-quarters. 

On the next morning, six companies marched, under com- 
mand of Col. Biodget, to Gov. Dorr's head-quarters. While 
they were on the way, the Governor, by the advice of his 
friends, and their assurances that arrangements were in prog- 
ress that would, in their opinion, terminate favorably, and 
having also the strongest ocular evidence that the people 
were not ready or willing to sustain him in his military 
movements, left the State. A small remnant were dissatis- 
fied, and encamped on the hill ; but in the course of the 
ensuing day, after seeing the impossibility of successful 
defence, withdrew. 

Gov. King shortly after issued a Proclamation, ofTering a 
reward of a thousand dollars for the capture and delivery of 
Gov. Dorr to the Charter authorities. The reward has not 
yet been claimed. 

3* 



30 



CONCLUSION. 

We have thus presented all the facts necessary to a right 
understanding of the controversy, and we now ask the can- 
did attention of the public to a few thoughts, growing out of 
these facts. 

It appears that there are some seventeen thousand white 
male adults in the State who have no voice in the adminis- 
tration of the Government. This body constitutes a ma- 
jority of the people. They are taxed and compelled to 
perform military duty, yet have no more power than the 
Russian serfs. They are serfs ; and while the Autocrat is 
adopting measures for raising the slaves of his empire to a 
level with humanity, the Charter autocrats are tightening the 
chains and refusing to " let the oppressed go free." Their 
RIGHT to a written Constitution, embracing free suffrage 
and equal represctitation, will not, we apprehend, be ques- 
tioned by the people of any other State in the Union ; for 
such questioning would repudiate the principles and efforts 
of our forefathers, and cover their sons with infamy. Many 
of the land-holders themselves admit this. Indeed what 
could be a stronger acknowledgment than the actual grant- 
ing of this right in the Constitution proposed by them for 
the adoption of the people? Time does not sanctify injus- 
tice ; and though Oppression be hoary-headed, its age gives 
it no " divine right." " All men are born free and equal ; " 
so says the Declaration of Independence, and so says intui- 
tion. Thomas Jefferson when he wrote that sentiment gave 
birth to no new idea. He but took the thought^ which finds a 
home in every man's heart, and gave it ivords. The poorest 
come into the world with their limbs as free as those of the 
wealthiest. They are born neither with crowns on their 
heads or manacles on their bodies ; and if adventitious cir- 



31 

cumstances degrade them below the intention of their Maker, 
they have the right to seek immediate restoration to their 
natural position. The colonies at the period of the Revolu- 
tion acted upon this principle. His Majesty, King George, 
disregarded their petitions for redress, under the laws of 
England ; and they threw off King George and the laws of 
England together. 

But if the people of Rhode Island are entitled to the 
rights for which we contend, hoiv long- ought they to lu ait for 
them ? For ever ? They have, as the facts we have pre- 
sented abundantly show, petitioned for almost half a cen- 
tury. One entire generation has gone into the grave, and 
how much better situated are the people ? They have been, 
year after year, seduced into quiet by delusive promises, 
thrown out to them like the tub to the whale ; and every 
promise has terminated in some fresh and more cruel infrac- 
tion of their rights. " A whole generation," says Gov. Dorr 
in his inaugural, " has thus passed away, in fruitless efforts 
to obtain as a grant from the chartered authorities, those 
rights which are every where else, throughout the length and 
breadth of this great Republic, regarded as the birthright of 
the people. The legislature had been repeatedly approached 
in terms of respectful petition, and the applicants had been 
driven away as intruders upon the vested rights of the ruling 
political class." The General Assembly has always had the 
power to grant free suffrage, and to some degree equal repre- 
sentation, under the Charter, but have always refused to 
exercise it. They were determined that the soil rather than 
the soul should be » the test of merit." They have denied 
and spurned the truth of the idea so beautifully expressed 
by the poet : 

" Men, high-minded men ; 

Men, who their duties know, 
But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain, 

Prevent the long-aimed blow, 
And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain ; 
These constitute a State." 



32 

And we would here, en passant, commend this quotation 
to the especial thought of one of the Justices of the U. S. 
Court in Rhode Island who cited it, with the remark that 
" wealth does not constitute a State," in an eloquent Cen- 
tennial Address, delivered in 1836, but who is now by his 
judicial authority consigning to fetters those who deny the 
supremacy of the money-box over men and mind. 

We repeat the question, emphatically, how long the 
wronged are bound to wait before they are righUd ? And 
whether the lapse of sixty years of vassalage, with no vision 
of light breaking from the dark cloud that hangs like a pall 
over the future, is not sufficient to render patience no longer 
a virtue ? The people of Rhode Island should have their 
just rights NOW ; — they should have had them in 1776, 
when the soil had not yet dried up the baptismal ofl'ering of 
the freemen's blood. 

If, then, the people of Rhode Island have the riglit to a 
written Constitution, and have the right now, have they 
adopted the proper 'means to obtain their object? They 
called a Convention, and the Constitution proposed by that 
body received the sanction of a large majority of the white 
adult male citizens, over twenty-one years of age. Not even 
the Charter party dispute this. Now there is one fact here 
worthy of remembrance, and that is, that if the people, in 
their primary capacity, have not the power to form a Consti- 
tution, then there is no power in the State that has. The 
General Assembly have no such authority. Where is 
the passage in the Charter, under which they act, that per- 
mits them to adopt a new constitution, or propose one to the 
people ? The utmost they can do is to request the people to 
hold a convention, and adopt a Constitution. This is very 
far from having the sanction of law ; and this is all they ever 
have done, or dared to do, when the Landholders' Conven- 
tions have been called. Now, if the people have the right, 



33 

by request, to form a ConstitiUion, have they not a right 
without a request ? Is it not a virtual acknowledgment, that 
all power centres, de facto, in the people ? An able address 
before us, places the matter in the following strong light : 

" The opponents of the People's Constitution are in this 
difficulty. They say, that the people have no right of them- 
selves to make a Constitution ; that the General Assembly 
have no right to make a Constitution ; and that the freehold- 
ers and freemen have no right to make a Constitution, unless 
called and authorized thereto by the General Assembly, 
which has no power ! The people have rightfully determined 
that the power is in them, and have exercised it." If it be 
not in them, it exists nowhere. 

The argument, that no convention of the people can be 
valid, unless called by the existing authorities, is absurd. 
Carry out the idea, and let us see where it will bring us. 
The Constitution of the United States was the voluntary, 
unauthorized act of the States, and was not made by virtue 
of any call or power from the then existing General Govern- 
ment ; therefore it was, is, and ever must be, invalid. In fact, 
all the movements made in this country, from the incipient 
step down to the adoption of that great document, were with- 
out authority from the existing government. At any rate, 
we never heai'd that George III. called the conventions under 
which the people acted ; but have a strong impression that 
he opposed them much in the style of the Charter party, and 
argued that it was rank rebellion, " unless called by the ex- 
isting authorities^ Those who use the argument cannot 
dodge the conclusion, however unwelcome it may be. 
Rhode Island herself, in a convention called by the people 
in their sovereignty, and against the will of " the existing 
authority," cut asunder her allegiance to England. The 
doctrine of the supremacy of the " existing authority " 
over the clearly-expressed voice of the majority, is one 



34 

of the first political maxims in the text-book of Euro- 
pean despotism, but it sounds strangely in the ear of repub- 
licanism. Napoleon taught it, when at his climax, with his 
foot on the necks of the people ; so did Robespierre, while 
the guillotine was at its bloody work ; so did Charles the 
Tenth, when he muzzled the press ; and so did Nicholas, 
when his cannon thundered at the gates of Warsaw. But 
we trust this union has not yet become so servile as to tolerate 
it, even though it be urged by the " existing authorities " of 
Rhode Island. 

We maintain, that the only supreme power is the people ; 
and that this power towers above all charters, constitutions, 
or antiquated parchments, whether they be signed by the 
crowned or the uncrowned. The people have the full right, 
at any time, and at all times, in their primary capacity, to 
" alter, amend, or abolish " the forms of government under 
which they live. The Declaration of Independence, which 
we suppose not even the Charter party are yet prepared 
to pronounce a *' mere rhetorical ilonrish," says that govern- 
ments derive " their just powers from the consent of the gov- 
erned.''^ Mark! not from a privileged class, not from the 
landholders, not from the wealthy minority, but from the gov- 
enied. 

At the Rhode Island Convention of freemen in 1790, a 
Declaration of Rights was adopted, which says, " That there 
are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a 
social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity ; 
among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty;" and 
it goes on to say that "all power is naturally vested in, and 
consequently derived from the people ^^^ and that " the power 
of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever 
it shall become necessary to their happiness." 

This Declaration has been buried for fifty years in the' 
archives of the State. We advise the Charter Party to take 



it from its sepulchre, brush away the cobwebs that have 
gathered over it, breathe into it once more the breath of life, 
and give it again to the people. 

Washington, in his Farewell Address, says that "the 
basis of our political systems is the right of the people to 
make and aUer their constitutions of government." 

Madison, in advocating the adoption of the Constitution 
says, that " it is essential that it be derived from the great 
body of the society, not from an inconsiderable portion or 
a favored class.^^ 

Hamilton, whom no one will charge with ultra republi- 
canism, says that " the fabric of American Empire ought to 
rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The 
streams of national power ought to flow immediately from 
that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority." Fed. 
No. 22. 

Justice Wilson says, " Of the right of a majority of the 
whole people to change their government, at avill, there is 
no doubt." The same Justice, in his eloquent Lectures on 
Law, (Vol. I. p. 17,) says "that the supreme or sovereign 
power of the society resides in the citizens at large ; and 
that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, 
altering or amending their Constitution, at whatever time 
and in whatever manner they shall deem expedient." 

Justice Patterson, of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, says that " a Constitution is the form of government 
delineated by the mighty hand of the people ; " that it is 
" paramount to the will of the legislature," and is liable " to 
be revoked or altered by those who made it." 

Justice Iredell, of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, speaking of the power of the people says : " Those 
in power are their servants and agents. And the people, 
without their consent, may remodel the government, when- 
ever they think proper, not merely because it is oppressively 



36 

exercised, but because they think another form is more con- 
ducive to their ivelfare." This is the precise situation of 
Rhode Island. The people, without the consent of those in 
power, remodelled the government, " because they thought 
another form more conducive to their welfare." 

Marshall, that great and sound Jurist, who " though 
dead yet speaketh," in giving an opinion of the Supreme 
Court says : " That the people have an original right to 
establish for their future government, such principles as, in 
their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is 
the basis on which the whole American fabric has been 
erected." 

Justice Story, whose authority we apprehend none will 
dispute, says in his Commentaries on the Constitution : 

" The Declaration puts the doctrine on the true ground — 
that governments derive their powers from the consent of 
the governed. (Vol. I. p. 300.) The same Justice says, 
that the Constitution of the State " is unalterable, unless by 
the consent of a majority of the people, or at least by the 
qualified voters of the State, in the manner prescribed by the 
Constitution, or otherwise provided by the majority." (Vol. 
I. p. 305.) 

We might offer a multitude of other authorities upon this 
point, but these must suffice. Jefferson, Jay, Raavle, and 
a host of others utter the same sentiments. 

Congress has directly settled this question, if question it 
can be called, by its action relative to Michigan, in 1836. 
The people held, by their own power, and without any law 
to that effect, a Convention, and accepted a fundamental 
condition of their admission into the Union. This was pro- 
nounced, by its opponents, a tumultuary assemblage, a 
riotous, unlawful mob ; and it was gravely urged that a law 
should be passed making such unauthorized Conventions 
penal. But Congress took a different view of the matter. 



37 

They admitted the right of the people so to assemble, pro- 
nounced the Convention valid, and Michigan became one 
of the States of the Union.* 

The only question that remains is, whether the proceed- 
ings of the Free Suffrage Convention were equitable, and 
whether an indisputable majority of the citizens voted for the 
Constitution. Let us look at the facts. 

There were three immense mass meetings held at differ- 
ent parts of the State. At the second one, a large Commit- 
tee was appointed to call a Convention. In that call the 
Committee apportioned the State fairly, and each was repre- 
sented according to its population. To prove this, we refer 
to the facts already stated. The Convention adopted a 
Constitution, and submitted it to the white male adult citi- 
zens, who had resided in the State one year, and in the town 
where they were to vote six months. Moderators and 
Clerks were properly elected. The Moderators were not 
sworn, because it was not ordered by the Convention, and 
because it has never been the custom in the State. All the 
votes were carefully preserved in envelopes, and certified to 
by the proper officers. Each vote had the voter's name 
attached. There were some proxy votes, but these were 
comparatively few, and would not, if thrown out of the 
estimate, change the result materially. 

At the next Convention the Committee appointed to 
count the votes reported that, as nearly as could be ascer- 
tained, the number of white male adult citizens in the State, 



* This is the precise situation of the people of Rhode Island, with the 
exception that the Michigan Convention was called with less regard to legal 
forms, and the returns made with less accuracy and certainty. And here we 
would suggest that one mode of settling this question beyond dispute is, at 
the next election, to send Representatives to Congress, under the new Consti- 
tution. The Charter party will do the same. And Congress will decide 
which are entitled to seats. 

4 



excepting paupers, those under guardianship, convicts, &c., 
was 23,142, of whom a majority is 11,572, and that the 
People's Constitution received 13,944 votes, being a plu- 
rality of 4,747. But even if all this was illegal, the Consti- 
tution was adopted by the landholders themselves. The fol- 
lowing figures show this. At the time of the Presidential 
election, in 1840, the entire strength of the freemen was 
brought out ; for, since the Revolution, no effort at all com- 
parable with that fierce contest was ever made by any 
party. On that occasion there were 8,622 votes thrown. 
Now, the returns show that the number of votes cast for the 
People's Constitution by the landholders, was 4,927, being 
a majority of 616, taking the vote of 1840 as the basis. 
Thus it appears that the People's Constitution not only 
received the popular vote, but the vote of the majority of 
the freemen themselves. But if the returns were inaccurate, 
the Convention took no pains to conceal that inaccuracy. 
On the contrary, the Counting Committee, by their orders, 
transmitted the report to the General Assembly at the 
January Session in 1842, and a motion was made to inquire 
into the returns, but was negatived by a large majority. 
They had the full opportunity to show that the Constitution 
was not adopted by the majority, and thus put the matter at 
rest. But they well knew that those returns ivere accurate, 
and they wisely refused to sharpen the axe provided for 
their own necks. 

It is said that the Constitution proposed by the landhold- 
ers, subsequent to the passage of the People's Constitution, 
embraced the points at issue, and that, had the people 
adopted it, they would have obtained all they asked ; and 
that their rejection of it manifests their insincerity. "We by 
no means regard it in that light. A Constitution had 
already been adopted, legally, and by a large majority. 
Why should they adopt another? They considered the 



39 

present one valid, and the law of the land, and did not deem 
it necessary to abolish it in four weeks, at the request of the 
minority. 

But the landholder's Constitution did 7iot grant all they 
asked. The people saw the hook through the bait. 

It did not give a jury trial to citizens who might be 
claimed to be removed from the State to be held to labor. 

It did not protect witnesses from religious tests. 

It did not destroy the freehold qualification or the peculiar 
privilege of the eldest son. 

It did not confer free suffrage, but allowed freeholders to 
vote in the State after a residence of one year, and non- 
freeholders after a residence of two years. 

It did not place naturalized citizens on a level with the 
soil-born, but required of them three years' residence, in 
addition to the five required by the laws of the United 
States, and that they should own real estate in the town 
where they might vote. 

It did not provide for the vote by ballot, but referred the 
subject to the General Assembly. 

It did not limit the Jurisdiction of the General Assembly 
in Judicial matters, but gave them the unlimited power that 
they possessed under the Charter. 

It did not exempt from a poll tax those who actually per- 
form military service, or duty in the fire department. 

It did not provide that Acts of Incorporation should be 
amendable or repealable. 

It did not give the veto or pardoning power to the Execu- 
tive. 

It did not , in case of failure in the election of Governor 
and Lieutenant-Governor, refer the election to the people, 
but to the Grand Committee. 

It did not provide that " no member of the General 
Assembly shall be eligible to any civil office, under the 



40 

authority of the State, during the time for which he shall 
have been elected." 

But while the above omissions and provisions presented 
grounds of serious objection, the apportionment of represen- 
tation, both in the House and Senate, was so glaringly 
unequal and anti-republican, as to condemn it at once. The 
Free Suffrage party, by consenting to it, would have aban- 
doned in fact all they w^ere contending for. They demanded 
that their right to free suffrage should be conceded, and the 
landholders' Convention sought to concede the principle but 
to hold on to the power. They sought to treat them as chil- 
dren, and to throw them free suffrage as a toy to play with, 
but the substantial benefits of the franchise they were deter- 
mined to withhold. After all, it was to be the land that was 
to govern and not man. The Free Suffrage party were 
solemnly bound to reject that constitution, and they would 
have been false to themselves and to their principles had 
they done otherwise. We appeal to the facts. Rhode 
Island contained a population at the last census of 108,837 
souls, and 25,674 of those were free white adult citizens. 
This constitution provided for a Senate consisting of nine- 
teen members apportioned arbitrarily among the several 
towns, with hardly the semblance of a regard to population. 
For instance, Smithfield, with a population of 9,534, was to 
have one Senator, while Newport, with only 8,333 inhabitants, 
was to have two ; and so on, in all cases giving a decided 
preponderance to the agricultural towns. By this appor- 
tionment, ten, or a majority of those Senators were to be 
chosen by 35,593, or less than one-third of the population, 
and the remaining population, viz. 73,244, were to elect only 
nine. But its present was nothing in comparison with its 
prospective inequality. The latter portion of the population 
were embraced in the most gi'owing towns, and ere long 
the representation in the Senate would have become as 



41 

objectionable as under the Charter. No provision was made 
for a new apportionment of Senators for all coming time, and 
this landed majority in the Senate could always prevent the 
passage of any act of amendment to the constitution. 
While, therefore, the Senate had, as provided, a concurrent 
vote with the House, it would always have the power to 
defeat the will of the people, and thus render their free 
suffrage a mere nullity. The apportionment of Representa- 
tives was still worse, less than one third of the people choos- 
ing a decided majority of the nominally popular branch. 

The Suffrage Party were not struggling for an abstract 
principle, but a valuable right, which they could use and 
enjoy ; and therefore they rallied against the unsubstantial 
concession of their opponents and happily defeated it. Had 
this constitution been fixed upon them, they would have 
been more free in name but scarcely more so in fact than 
when w^holly disfranchised; and what would have been 
worse, their fate would have been sealed. No amendments, 
loosening the bonds, would they or their children have seen, 
without passing through just such a scene as the present. 
They were right in adhering to the proverb, that " What- 
ever is worth doing at all is worth doing well," and refusing 
to accept of the shadow for the substance. 

The preceding data and the arguments deduced from 
them, lead us to the irresistible conclusion, that the Govern- 
ment now in operation under the People's Constitution, is 
the only legal authority of the State of Rhode Island, and 
should, by all good citizens, be obeyed as such. Those 
who do not, may very properly be regarded as disturbers of 
the public peace, and enemies to law and order. The fact 
that the minority have the temporary ascendency will never 
legalize what is, in itself, wrong. 

Of the measures taken by Gov. Dorr to maintain the 
supremacy of the people, and preserve their Constitution 



42 

inviolate, we have nothing to say. How far it may be expe- 
dient for him to proceed, every man must judge for himself. 
It may not be improper, however, for us to remind the 
reader that when he took the solemn oath of office, he 
pledged himself by that oath, " So help him God," to sus- 
tain the important rights committed to his trust, and to see 
the laws faithfully executed, and that for this purpose he was 
appointed the Commander-in-Chief. But we apprehend no 
disastrous results from the military operations of either party. 
In this country, public opinion is the stern and just arbiter 
in the seat of justice. Who can resist its decision ? They 
might as well attempt to stay the avalanche as it thunders 
down the mountain side, or hold back the swelling waters 
of the Atlantic. How long, think you, the minority of 
Rhode Island can breast the storm of popular indignation 
and contempt that is gathering around thenij like the four 
winds of heaven lashed into wrath, from fifteen millions of 
people ? The great principle over which they are riding 
rough shod, all " booted and spurred," was purchased by a 
seven year's war, by immense treasure, and by the blood and 
lives of thousands of the best and noblest the world ever 
saw. That principle is the basis of all free government, 
and the people of the Union will see it sacredly preserved. 
Let those beware who, to gratify ambition or self-will, shall 
rudely trample it down ; and let them remember, too, that 
the PEOPLE MUST ULTIMATELY TRIUMPH. The firc of free- 
dom, though it may be lost to human vision, will still burn 
undyingly. It may smoulder in the ashes of oppression, 
but cannot be extinguished. The Past, with its fearful 
memories, belongs to tyranny, " baptized legitimate by the 
grace of God ; " but the Future, with its full harvest of bless- 
ings, belongs to the People. 



43 



COMPARATIVE TABULAR STATEMENT OF 
VOTES. 



Providence, 
N. Providence, 
Smithfield, 
Cumberland, 
Scituate, . 
Cranston, . 
Johnston, . 
Gloucester, 
Foster, . . 
Burrillville, 
Newport, . 
Portsmouth, 
Middletown, 
Tiverton, . . 
Little Compton, 
New Shoreham, 
Jamestown, . 
S. Kingstown, 
Westerly, . 
N. Kingstown, 
Exeter, . . . 
Charlestown, . 
Hopkinton, . 
Richmond, . . 
Warwick, 
Coventry, . . 
E. Greenmch, 
W. Greenwich, 
Bristol, . . 
Warren, . . 
Barrington, . 






1058 
. 220 

382 
. 293 

208 
. 159 

139 
. 138 

125 
. 237 

317 
. 67 

#12 

. 100 

18 

. 117 

30 

. 135 

107 

. 81 

53 

.=^50 

80 

. 45 

308 

. 156 

52 

. 9 

160 
. 103 



c o 

r^ . 

319 

105 

249 

185 

121 

110 

86 

212 

70 

167 

102 

63 

2 

44 

4 

27 

9 

91 

76 

110 

11 

24 

89 

#40 

168 

130 

37 

17 

65 

34 

17 



£0 c, 

o ^ 2 

396 
78 

266 

189 

116 
98 
94 

120 
60 
96 

122 

29 

3 

20 

20 

00 

8 

55 

65 

90 

7 

29 

87 

45 

107 
90 
33 
4 
46 
19 
00 



863 
111 
204 
147 
196 
119 
110 

62 
186 

71 
380 
109 

78 
175 

91 

80 

36 
224 
106 
135 
119 

55 
101 

70 
207 
197 
112 
114 
229 
184 

45 









§ = o . 



O S c S' 



3553 
708 
1338 
892 
524 
400 
347 
401 
238 
280 
1207 
127 

25 
274 

43| 
124 

66 
275 
251 
251 
134 
100 
160 
132 
895 
008 
137 

48 
366 
210 

53 



2154 

402 

664 

504 

220 

250 

215 

250# 
50 

150# 

327 
89 
00 

115 



00 
89 
37 
146 
00 



417 
21 
69 
17 

140 
42 
40 



4927 2684 2392 4916 13966 6417 



* No return — Number estimated. 



I No meetings. 



I No return. 



